Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Canadian born actors Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas created the characters Bob and Doug McKenzie for the Candaian-syndicated comedy show SCTV. The McKenzies were a couple of stereotypical Canadian goofs (I have it on good authority that Candians don't act this way regularly) who called each other “hosers”, swilled beer and created this tortured version of the 12 Days of Christmas. Here is an animated version. Thanks to the vodka-swilling James Wigderson for this suggestion.

Here's The Hockey Song (along with Sudbury Saturday Night) by Stompin Tom Connors at the behest of Canadian expatriate, illusory Tenant. A fine number seven entry in our very illogical ranking of all-time best Canadian songs.

Illusory Tenantwondered whether a list was forthcoming of Canadian all-time favorite songs. I had not intended that with this post, but in the spirit of giving here is Number Nine, Helpless by Neil Young. Suggestions are welcome.

Thursday, December 18, 2008

Paul Weyrich, whom some considered the father of the religious right and one of the founders of modern conservatism, died this morning at the age of 66.

In my mind, Weyrich is notable for a number of ideas he advanced using the Republican party as the vehicle. One was the the conservative effort at voter suppression. He said as much in 1980.

Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome -- good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.

Sound familiar? It's just one example of his anti-democratic zeal.

Weyrich was also was a homophobe as this snippet of a conversation he had with Michelle Norris of NPR in 2006 illustrates.

Weyrich: It has been known for many years that Congressman Foley was a homosexual. Homosexuals tend to be preoccupied with sex - the idea that he should be continued, or should have been continued as chairman on the Committee for Missing and Exploited Children, given their knowledge of that is just outrageous.

Norris: Now, before we go on, I think I can say, Mr. Weyrich, that there quite a few people who would take exception to the statement that homosexuals are preoccupied with sex.

Weyrich: Well, I don't care whether they take exception to it - it happens to be true.

Norris: That is your opinion.

Weyrich: Well, it's not my opinion, it's the opinion of many psychologists and psychiatrists who have to deal with them.

If their agenda was hidden 15 years ago, today it is in full public view. Just take a look at their Web sites, where they document in considerable detail an agenda on a wide range of issues: judicial nominations, same-sex marriage, and faith-based issues – and an agenda that, let us be clear, goes well beyond legitimate engagement in controversial social and political issues to a fundamental usurpation of all that America represents.

Among the group's members are these extremeists.

The Alliance Defense Fund - Alan SearsMost importantly, the court victories are vital steps to keep doors open for the spread of the gospel and reclaim the legal system for Jesus Christ.

The American Family Association - Donald WildmonThe American Famaily Association, “believes that God has communicated absolute truth to man through the Bible, and that all men everywhere at all times are subject to the authority of God’s word. Therefore, culture based on biblical truth best serves the well-being of our country."

Family Research Council - Tony PerkinsChristians can be loyal to liberal democracy as long as rights are carefully controlled by a dominant culture that directs them to the true hierarchy of ends.

Focus on the Family - James DobsonThe enemies of morality will not stop and will not back off. The Left cannot and will not change… no matter how many God-fearing and God-honoring women and men are elected and appointed to public office, until the hearts of the people change, we will not turn around this culture and restore our Biblical foundations.

The movement that Weyrich helped come to fruition is suffering through some hard times these days, but its message of intolerance for others continues on.

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Erica Heller's comments regarding George Bush were sent to me by that worthy mom-of-mine and they are reproduced below.

Into yesterday's daily meat grinder of news went a little bit of everything, the Madoff debacle, the shoes tossed at Bush, Caroline Kennedy's political aspirations, the already by now daily dump on Obama & Co., the Iago Blago, and what a recipe it was. But hello? Seemingly lost in the proverbial shuffle, but for Keith and Rachel, the two worthiest guardians at the gates of our collective conscience, and what knocked the very wind out of me, were just two little words petulantly uttered by Bush to the ever-formidable Martha Raddatz in this lame duck's lamest, latest cheesy attempt at anthropomorphism: "So what?' said the man in charge of the free world, when asked about whether or not Al-Qaeda was in Iraq before we were. So what? Huh? Were chillier, crueler, more cavalier words ever spoken? Somehow, this seems to be lost in the news today but my brain refuses to flush it. Perhaps because my blood is still boiling.

It seems to me that with those two extraordinary, positively barbaric words, we finally got to see the true Bush, without artifice, without the smug, sneering frozen mask of pre-prepared, freeze-dried answers to questions, which he always seemed so infuriated at having to answer.

Indeed, he is the very epitome of a So What President. So what if the Katrina victims rot? So what if the world hates us? So what if our actions resonate everywhere with dire, catastrophic consequences? So what if people are starving and have no health care in one of the richest nations in the world. And so what if we leaped into an unnecessary war with manipulated "evidence", in which thousands have perished, utterly pointlessly? After all, we are not permitted to see the caskets anyway, right? And so what if the veterans come home to outrageously disgraceful medical care as well as, at best, precarious financial circumstances? There is no end to the list and no end to the "So whats", because this is a person who checked out years ago, if indeed he ever checked in. The difference now is that with only 35 interminably long days left to this hideous sham, he no longer has to even attempt to try to seem concerned, involved, present.

And I am left to wonder for all 35 of them, and surely way, way beyond, how this imposter can possibly be headed off, untroubled, unfettered, into the sunset, bound for a cushy life in Dallas, instead of a brutal trial in The Hague. I mean, is anyone accountable here? Responsible? Officially culpable?

Or will history's inevitable response to all this be just more of the same?

Will it also whisper: "So what"?

Isn't it the truth?

And his legions of admirers and enablers are just as hideously guilty. They checked out of the human race 14 years ago when Gingrich and pals, playing upon fears and anger, first rode to power. Since then they've plundered the economy, created more fear and anger based on ignorance, unleashed an unnecessary war, and set back foreign relations 60 years.

A generation from now I hope we will be able to look back and be thankful that most of the damage has been undone. I hope I'll be able to say when I hear a conservative lament that the Bush years are unfairly treated by historians – So what!

Monday, December 15, 2008

Rumor has it that the Milwaukee Brewers are considering giving the Iraqi journalist who threw two shoes at President Bush a tryout for the 2009 season. Even though Muntader al-Zaidi missed the President, the hope is that he will find it easier to throw a basbeall accurately. With CC Sabathia already signed by the Yankees, and Ben Sheets not likely to return to the Brewers' rotation, there is a need for mining new talent, so to speak.

The source also noted that Iraq is a largely untapped region for baseball talent and perhaps some of the bomb throwers living there might be convinced to try a less lethal sport.

Friday, December 12, 2008

I've added Nick Schweitzer to the blog roll. I don't know why he wasn't on earlier. I've also made some adjustments because the blogger seemed to have left the premises, or the blogger had become uninteresting -- or too unhinged.

Thursday, December 11, 2008

The way we wished it had been, just with different characters. Think about how much the Republicans/conservatives blew it. They had a cowed media and an intimidated Democratic party to deal with. It should have been easy. All they had to figure out was how to govern and get their message across without the division, intolerance and hate.

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

You know, sometimes one can get carried away by the moment and write things that he does not really mean. I have done that via email and on my blog regarding Fred Dooley.

From this point on I will be making it a point of mine not to respond to anything Fred may say of a negative sort, nor will I start anything with him. 'Tis the Christmas season, so why not reach out to someone you may not like and try to put an end to the animosity.

Also, I made a point on another blog of threatening to release information that had been provided to me by Fred in confidence. While I did not expressly say what had been sent to me, I did hint at the contents and make fun of them. There was no reason to, and I will not follow through on my threat to release the story.

It's all Mike Mathias' fault for alerting me to it. Well, no – it's Fred Dooley's fault for not listing The Other Side of My Mouth higher on his liberal hitlist of sites that had not jumped into the fray quickly enough over Illinois Gov. Rod's indictment. When Fred did get around to pointing me out on his list, it was to suggest that rather than heap all sorts of opprobrium Blagojevich's way, I had written a defense of Bill Ayers.

In typical Fred style, that's not true and it is dishonest. I did indeed write a post regarding Bill Ayers, but had done so two days before the news came out about the indictments. Hardly a case of ignoring one for the other. I pointed this out to Fred in an email (because I'm banned from commenting at his site), adding that if he had actually read the post he would have seen that I was not actually defending Ayers. Fred's reply was classic:

Yes Tim when you attack those who would dare to bring him up you are defending.

Interesting. The point of the post was to comment on Ayers' op-ed in the New York Times. I happened to agree with Ayers' assessment that the guilt by association tactics used by the right regarding some closer connection between Ayers and President-Elect Barck Obama were dishonest. That's not a defense of Ayers, it's agreement with a point he makes. I also wrote that I was troubled by his explanations for the illegal actions he took, including exploding bombs that did not take lives, but could have. But that was not enough for the not so nimble brain housed in the large body named Fred. I was a defender.

So, according to Fred's illogic, if I were to say it is dishonest for people to continue to blame Germans for the sins of Adolf Hitler, then I would actually be defending Adolf Hitler.

Similarly, if I were to say that Fred's support of the worst of George Bush's Iraq policies makes him nothing more than a whiny little sychophant, I'm supporting Saddam Hussein.

Fred really is a classic. Please blog long and hearty – the merriment he provides cannot be measured. As Michael said, “Fred Dooley is fucking valuable.”

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

I received this from a friend of mine. I checked it out and found it's been flying around the intertubes for at least a couple years now. I'm sure some dipshit gun-hugger (you know to whom I refer) will have something smart to say but I don't care. the story is funny.

Last weekend I saw something at Larry's Pistol & Pawn Shop that sparked my interest. The occasion was our 15th anniversary and I was looking for a little something extra for my wife Julie. What I came across was a 100,000-volt, pocket/purse-sized taser. The effects of the taser were supposed to be short lived, with no long-term adverse affect on your assailant, allowing her adequate time to retreat to safety?

WAY TOO COOL!

Long story short, I bought the device and brought it home. I loaded two AAA batteries in the darn thing and pushed the button. Nothing! I was disappointed. I learned, however, that if I pushed the button AND pressed it against a metal surface at the same time, I'd get a blue arc of electricity darting back and forth between the prongs.

AWESOME!

Unfortunately, I have yet to explain to Julie what that burn spot is on the face of her microwave. Okay, so I was home alone with this new toy, thinking to myself that it couldn't be all that bad with only two triple-A batteries, right? There I sat in my recliner, my cat Gracie looking on intently (trusting little soul) while I was reading the directions and thinking that I really needed to try this thing out on a flesh & blood moving target. I must admit I thought about zapping Gracie (for a fraction of a second) and thought better of it. She is such a sweet cat. But, if I was going to give this thing to my wife to protect herself against a mugger, I did want some assurance that it would work as advertised. Am I wrong?

So, there I sat in a pair of shorts and a tank top with my reading glasses perched delicately on the bridge of my nose, directions in one hand, and taser in another. The directions said that a one-second burst would shock and disorient your assailant; a two-second burst was supposed to cause muscle spasms and a major loss of bodily control; a three-second burst would purportedly make your assailant flop on the ground like a fish out of water. Any burst longer than three seconds would be wasting the batteries.

All the while I'm looking at this little device measuring about 5" long, less than 3/4 inch in circumference. Pretty cute really and (loaded with two itsy, bitsy triple-A batteries) thinking to myself, 'no possible way!' What happened next is almost beyond description, but I'll do my best?

I'm sitting there alone, Gracie looking on with her head cocked to one side as to say, 'don't do it dipshit,' reasoning that a one-second burst from such a tiny little ole thing couldn't hurt all that bad. I decided to give myself a one second burst just for heck of it. I touched the prongs to my naked thigh, pushed the button, and . . .

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD!WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!WHAT THE HELL!

I'm pretty sure Jessie Ventura ran in through the side door, picked me up in the recliner, then body slammed us both on the carpet, over and over and over again. I vaguely recall waking up on my side in the fetal position, with tears in my eyes, body soaking wet, both nipples on fire, testicles nowhere to be found, with my left arm tucked under my body in the oddest position, and tingling in my legs? The cat was making meowing sounds I had never heard before, clinging to a picture frame hanging above the fireplace, obviously in an attempt to avoid getting slammed by my body flopping all over the living room.

Note: If you ever feel compelled to 'mug' yourself with a taser, one note of caution: there is no such thing as a one second burst when you zap yourself! You will not let go of that thing until it is dislodged from your hand by a violent thrashing about on the floor. A three second burst would be considered conservative?

SON-OF-A-BITCH, THAT HURT LIKE HELL!

A minute or so later (I can't be sure, as time was a relative thing at that point), I collected my wits (what little I had left), sat up and surveyed the landscape. My bent reading glasses were on the mantel of the fireplace. The recliner was upside down and about 8 feet or so from where it originally was. My triceps, right thigh and both nipples were still twitching. My face felt like it had been shot up with Novocaine, and my bottom lip weighed 88 lbs. I had no control over the drooling. Apparently I shit myself, but was too numb to know for sure and my sense of smell was gone. I saw a faint smoke cloud above my head which I believe came from my hair.

I'm still looking for my nuts and I'm offering a significant reward for their safe return!!

Saturday, December 6, 2008

Bill Ayers has finally responded to the unfounded allegations from the right nut-wing that he and President-Elect Barack Obama (I love writing that) were pals who liked nothing better than to pal around – that in fact, these BFFs were likely conspiring to take over the government and have a Muslim theocracy installed soon after. The allegations of course were nonsense.

Ayers states, in his op-ed piece published in the New York Times on Dec. 5, that he refrained from commenting during the campaign because he saw no way to have a rational discussion. I agree. He writes:

Unable to challenge the content of Barack Obama’s campaign, his opponents invented a narrative about a young politician who emerged from nowhere, a man of charm, intelligence and skill, but with an exotic background and a strange name. The refrain was a question: “What do we really know about this man?”

And it continues. Witness the article in Conservapedia by Andy Schafly and the accompanying approval of its contents by local blogger, dad29. One must be capable of rational thought to be able to comprehend a rational discussion. On the subject of Obama and Ayers, Schafly and dad29, and generally the right-side of the cheddarsphere are found sorely lacking.

I was 14-years old in 1970; at that time six years older than the future President-Elect Barack Obama (nice sound to it). While I and friends shared thoughts about the war, we were only vaguely aware of larger protests. I remember reports of bombings and knew that an uncle of mine had gotten caught in a sweep in Milwaukee of protestors by the police and had been arrested. Guilt by looks; he had the long hair and beard popular then. But these all happened elsewhere. In much the same way that small northern communities were shielded from the civil rights movement and meeting black people in general, we did not feel the impact of the explosions of anger toward the war. Regarding these assaults on the establishment, Ayers writes further:

I never killed or injured anyone. I did join the civil rights movement in the mid-1960s, and later resisted the draft and was arrested in nonviolent demonstrations. I became a full-time antiwar organizer for Students for a Democratic Society. In 1970, I co-founded the Weather Underground, an organization that was created after an accidental explosion that claimed the lives of three of our comrades in Greenwich Village. The Weather Underground went on to take responsibility for placing several small bombs in empty offices — the ones at the Pentagon and the United States Capitol were the most notorious — as an illegal and unpopular war consumed the nation.

I'm very troubled by these acts of rebellion. Innocent people could have been killed by these weapons, as did occur with the Sterling Hall bombing in Madison in 1970. In the United States these sorts of deeds are looked at with disdain and opprobrium. Even Ayers admits, “The Weather Underground crossed lines of legality, of propriety and perhaps even of common sense.” He is fortunate that no lives were lost due to his actions, otherwise he would not be writing this opinion in a major newspaper, let alone being the unfocused and often delirious attention of many.

Regarding the dishinesty of the right, however, Ayers is right on when he writes:

The dishonesty of the narrative about Mr. Obama during the campaign went a step further with its assumption that if you can place two people in the same room at the same time, or if you can show that they held a conversation, shared a cup of coffee, took the bus downtown together or had any of a thousand other associations, then you have demonstrated that they share ideas, policies, outlook, influences and, especially, responsibility for each other’s behavior. There is a long and sad history of guilt by association in our political culture, and at crucial times we’ve been unable to rise above it.

Ayers is exactly correct. What would have happened if Prescott Bush's very tenuous ties to Fritz Theissen, an early financial supporter of Adolf Hitler, had succeeded in being blown totally out of proportion. Would we have had two Presidents Bush? For all their sins, especially those of the younger Bush, that would have been wrong.

Ayers concludes by writing that “President-elect Obama and I sat on a board together; we lived in the same diverse and yet close-knit community; we sometimes passed in the bookstore. We didn’t pal around, and I had nothing to do with his positions. I knew him as well as thousands of others did, and like millions of others, I wish I knew him better.”

Fortunately, the minions of intolerance and despair failed to sidetrack the Obama Express. With good fortune we all will have eight years to get to know President-Elect Barack Obama better.

Friday, December 5, 2008

If you want a good laugh, you should follow the link to this article, written by Andy Schlafly (yes, he is the son of the notorious nutbag, Phyllis) found in his bastard creation Conservapedia. It is hilarious, unintentionally. Here are the first two paragraphs for the entry on Barack Obama. Remember, Conservapedia calls itself the trustworthy encyclopedia.

Barack Hussein Obama II (allegedly born in Honolulu, August 4, 1961) served as a first-term Democratic Senator from Illinois (2004-2008) and then, along with his running mate Joseph Biden, won the presidential election after twenty-three months of campaigning, raising and spending an unprecedented $650 million, most of which came from anonymous donors. An apparent Muslim, Obama could use the Koran when he is sworn into office.

Obama has espoused the socialist idea of "spreading the wealth, in other words raising the tax rates on business and the wealthy to a burdensome level in order to redistribute their income to low income individuals, many of whom don't currently pay income taxes. His health care plan forces employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will force many into a poorly run single payer system. To announce his trip to Berlin in July 2008, Obama used posters which show a marked similarity to posters of Lenin. During Obama's youth in Hawaii, he developed a strong, almost Father/Son relationship with Frank Marshall Davis, a known Communist. For these reasons and others, he is generally considered to hold Marxist/Socialist views - views directly contrary to those of most Americans. And it is because of these beliefs that he has kept hidden from the view of the general public that many are suspicious of his agenda for the future of the US.

Oh my.

Conservapedia then provides 15 bullet point items that purport to prove that Obama will likely be the first Muslim president. Aside from the utter falsity of these items, I can't help but wonder who cares and what is the big deal if we were to have a Muslim president? I believe the Constitution provides for religious freedom.

Oh, and tell this young man's mother a Muslim cannot become president.

Monday, December 1, 2008

So, little Miss vast right wing conspiracy is going to be the new Secretary of State.....

Little Miss I was under fire when she wasn't is going to be our face around the world.

Little Miss can't even deal with the opposition party is now supposed to deal with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez.

I really don't have the words to describe how I feel about this...

Scared comes to mind.

The jarring sentences above were posted at 12:52 pm by our "good friend", Fred Dooley. I assume he was trying to make a point, however after reading the post, I can't help but wonder one of two things: 1) Why is Fred drinking at 12:52 pm and 2) Maybe he's not drinking. Oh my.

Fred, you need either increase your Antabuse dosage, or find an editor.

As I opened the door to the refrigerator and placed my coffee cup in there to warm it up, two thoughts occurred to me nearly simultaneously: coffee warming is usually performed in the microwave and once again 'tis the season to get all bent out of shape over what to call the season.

Having hot coffee in hand --not literally -- I have to say I don't see the big deal. What's the big deal about calling it Christmas. I mean, seriously, it's always been Christmas (or at least for quite a long time). I have no problem referring to the season as the Christmas season -- and I'm an agnostic bordering on atheism.

But I'm also not a hysterical agnostic bordering on atheism. I recognize there are certain constants in our society and one of them is the holiday labeled Christmas. Now, to be sure, I also don't get bent out of shape when some business decides to refer to the season in a more generic way for fear of offending shoppers. Isn't it their right to do so?

Apparently not at the cost of slamming the sensitivities of the sensitive sort. I'm amused at this bitter dichotomy conservatives seem to suffer from all the time. One example: we should not ban cigarette smoking in restaurants, bars and other public places the conservative argument goes, because it will likely hurt business and shouldn't we leave it to businesses to make these sorts of decisions? And yet, when businesses make decisions like seasonal name-calling, suddenly they're in cahoots with Marxist leftists?

People. Take a deep breath. The one truism of the season is it's a time of giving and for love. Relax. Let it go. Celebrate and/or worship as you deem appropriate and don't let it bother you too much.